Tuesday, August 26, 2014

America: Home of the Brazen Propagandists (Category: Social Issues)

When reading, listening to, or viewing history or news in
America, it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to determine what
actually occurred.The view of the vast
majority of Americans is that all or many other countries have propaganda, but
America does not or has very little.The
reality is very different than this.The
reality is that all countries (and many other entities) significantly engage in
propaganda and that, on the whole, America appears to be more abusive than
other well-developed nations.

There are multiple reasons why the vast majority of
Americans are blind to the high level of propaganda in America.For one, the misbelief that America has no or
very little propaganda is a key tenet of American propaganda.Since we are immersed in a society that
repeatedly states it is above this sort of behavior, we strongly tend to
believe it is.For another, we believe
it because it makes us feel good to believe it.Believing it makes us feel like we are better than others.For yet another, we believe it because we are
under pressure to believe it.If we
believe it, and act like we believe it, employment, friends, customers,
advertisers, investors, etc. (i.e., a good life) are much easier to obtain and
maintain.Also, we believe it because
our ethics are not as nearly strong as they should be.We are not as concerned about the large
amount of death, destruction, etc. it causes as we should be.In fact, we almost always delude ourselves
into believing that the related death, destruction, etc. are not related.Also, we believe it because we misunderstand
how propaganda works.

Almost all Americans think that propaganda cannot exist on a
large scale less things like a Ministry of Propaganda, formal censorship,
and/or formal conspiracies to revise or omit facts.Propaganda exists on a large scale in America
and some other places less any of these things.How this occurs is extremely complex, and it is a phenomenon that
evolves over time; but a relatively easy way to partially explain it is by focusing
on the adverse influence of money and the pressure to conform to the desired
message.

Almost all American politicians are bought and paid for via
campaign contributions, the promise of a cushy job if they are not reelected,
etc.They do not represent the
people.They represent the money.Largely, big contributors and perk providers
matter, small contributors do not.Almost
all politicians lie, both with and without nuance, on a consistent basis.The truth is something they tell if it
happens to be more effective than a lie at the moment.Largely, politicians say what the big money
wants them to say.Very largely, ethics
is something they only pretend to have.(For this reason, and since the public is grossly misinformed, we do not
live in a democracy.We live in a
pretend democracy.There may be no
actual democracies in the world, just like there may be no actual communist
countries in the world.)

Political candidates are chosen and financially supported
due to their willingness to present the messages that their wealthier backers
want them to present.Whether these
messages are true or false is, largely, irrelevant.

Usually, business people are not much better.Despite what they may say, money is very often
the driving force behind their actions and statements; and many of the
wealthier ones successfully purchase the American political process.Media outlets are almost always businesses
with owners.The owners are not only
trying to make more money, they are, generally, wealthy people with a wealthy
person’s perspective; and they often impose this perspective, in part or in
whole, so as to influence the content of their media outlet(s).Non-profit organizations can be similarly
flawed in that they very often depend upon big contributors.

Once enough major politicians and media outlets, driven by
the influence of money, begin pushing a certain message―and the message often
begins with a purchased politician, such as the President, it is often
difficult for other people or entities to present a contradictory message.Presenting a contradictory message strongly
tends to come with a significant potential or actual price tag.

For example, and this just one of many, many examples, Western
political leaders cast the protests in the Maidan (central square) in Kiev,
Ukraine as a democratic movement.They
did this despite the fact that a lot of the protesters were well armed (i.e.,
they had things like clubs, air rifles, hunting rifles, and Molotov cocktails)
and well armored (i.e., they had things like helmets and bulletproof vests),
and despite the fact that the protestors were holding a public square for an
indefinite period via force.They also
did this despite the fact that (1) the most recent elections in the Ukraine
appeared to be fair, and another presidential election was going to occur in
2015, (2) the Russian package that the more-pro-Russian-versus-pro-Western
Ukrainian president was going to accept appeared to be far more generous than
the competing European Union package, (3) the Russians had been carrying the
Ukraine, somewhat, economically, for years, and (4), although the Ukrainian president
was corrupt, the opposition was also corrupt.Given all of these things, truly democratic protestors would have been
unarmed, been unarmored, left and returned to the Maidan and other sites, and
been drumming up support for an opposition election win in 2015 and/or the
elimination of corruption in the Ukrainian government regardless of who is in
power.

Western political leaders also cast the incident near the
Maiden where many protestors died as a massacre (i.e., “a specific incident
which involves the violent killing of many people, and the perpetrating party
is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is
perceived as helpless or innocent” [Wikipedia]).They did this despite the fact that (1) the
protestors decided to break a truce that was supposed to lead to an agreement
re early elections, (2) the protestors opened the barrier surrounding them,
passed through it, and advanced toward a police line, (3) ground-based gunshots
ensued, and (4), very soon thereafter, bullets started raining down from above,
almost entirely striking protestors, which is what you would expect to happen
in protection of the police on the police line.

I know it happened this way with a fairly high degree of
certainty because, buried within multiple stories I read about the supposed
massacre, there were some actual, seemingly dependable facts.Sometimes, there are not enough dependable
facts to piece the true story together; but, in this case, there were.A media outlet’s description of what happened
is not necessarily factual, nor is, for certain, a quote from a politician or
other biased source―unless the source is saying something that is not in the
source’s own best interest, in which case what they are saying has a much
better chance of being true.It also
helps if the source has not had time to contrive a more flattering story.Another thing to look for is whether the
seeming facts match or tie together well and tell a story that makes sense.

Basically, I figured out what actually happened in the
supposed Maiden massacre incident via quotes or information from (1) a
protestor that was in on the decision to break the truce, (2) a protestor that
was involved in the advance on the police line, (3) a CNN cameraman that was
overlooking the street on which the advance occurred who simply described what
he saw, and (4) the doctor who treated many of those wounded or killed in the
incident.Their stories matched or tied
together without a flaw.

Once the Western political leaders, including President Obama,
cast the protests as democratic and the Maidan incident as a massacre and
American major media outlets largely followed suit, it was difficult to
disagree much.It was time consuming to
find and digest the information that potentially taught you that you should
disagree; you needed to be smart enough to separate the important facts from
the abundance of other often-misleading information; and, then, you needed to
properly interpret the facts.If you
were not following the news closely at the time the incidents occurred or your
sources were not relatively good, you may never have had access to the necessary
facts.For instance, a couple of weeks ago,
I looked in Wikipedia; and you cannot tell what actually happened in the supposed
Maidan massacre incident from what is in Wikipedia.

If and when you came to understand that what you were told was
propaganda, you were faced with an additional set of problems.In speaking or writing the truth, would you
lose potential employment, employment, the chance for a promotion or raise,
friends, customers, advertisers, investors, etc.?Very largely, people want to be told that
what they already believe is true, and what they want to believe is true, is
true.Also, it is, essentially, a case
of our big money players versus the other side’s big money players; and you
will be siding, on these particular incidents, with the other side’s big money
players.None of those people is your
boss or potential boss (either directly or indirectly), a customer or potential
customer, an advertiser or potential advertiser, or an investor or potential
investor.Also, you may end up on some
U.S. (government or non-government) group’s watch and/or harass list, which is
a distinction you do not want.(Yes,
this kind of thing happens in America too.)You risk being labeled as, potentially at least, anti-American,
Communist, etc.―not just by a U.S. group, but also by those around you.This is despite the fact that the most
American thing you can do is to learn and speak the truth, thereby better enabling
you and other Americans to determine the best response to the situation.

Basically, it comes down to this.You were told what to think.Think it, or at least do not contradict it;
and you will be fine.In fact, you may
be rewarded.Contradict it, and you are
rolling the dice; and, if anything significant occurs due to your contradicting
it, it is very probably not going to be good.This same dilemma exists whether you are an individual, a business,
including media outlets, or another type of organization.

A lot of history and news in America is grossly
misrepresented.The list of grossly
misrepresented items is massively long; and it includes items such as events
leading up to and within the American Revolutionary War, the American Civil
War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and the recent conflicts in Libya, Syria,
and Ukraine.Sometimes, people that have
read, listened to, and/or watched a lot of history or news in America are
simply more thoroughly misinformed.They
know more; but, also, they know more false information.

There are two major problems associated with the abundance
of propaganda in America.The first is
that almost no one in our society is properly qualified to vote or make other
decisions important to our society.You
cannot have a true democracy without reasonably well-informed voters. (Of course, those truly in power in America do
not really want democracy.)Misinformed voters
make misinformed choices, and government officials misinformed about history
and current affairs make misinformed choices too.The second is that the propaganda tends to
lead to a lot of unwarranted death, dismemberment, starvation, homelessness, property
destruction, etc.Sometimes, only or
almost only foreigners suffer (e.g., as in the recent conflicts in Libya,
Syria, and Ukraine).Other times,
Americans suffer or suffer as well (e.g., as in the American Revolutionary War,
the American Civil War, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War).Regardless of who suffers, it is horribly
wrong.

One of the goals of every American should be to not
contribute to what is, essentially, murder, etc. by not accepting or
perpetuating dangerous falsehoods.There
are, sometimes, warranted wars.There
is, sometimes, accurate information about the world and our society within our
society; but a great amount of caution is warranted in consuming and passing on
information in America.

Comments Policy

You can disagree; but, if your Comment[s] indicates that you did not read and genuinely consider the entire piece or reflects a self-serving agenda, it may not be published. Comments are meant for well-intended questions, concerns and discussion―versus argument. Discussion isn’t about winning or losing and allows for revision in basic understanding.

About Me

Since 2010, I have sometimes written blogs or articles for fun and as a public service. My earlier pieces were on LearnBonds (2013) and Seeking Alpha (2010-2013) under my name (i.e., Kurt Shrout) and were investment-oriented. My newer pieces are on Blogger under my blog site called Realview Mirror. These pieces provide a rare totally unbiased view and often include unique analysis.